Thursday, June 26, 2014

John Cage College

JohnCageCollege

Consider: Cage at the piano.
The audience in their seats.
Cage at the piano—sitting,
hands by his side for 4 minutes
& 33 seconds. I want to know:
Why? What's the purpose, use,
good in being at a piano recital
and the piano player doesn't play?

“Against
Interpretation”
Title of a famous '60's essay
by Susan Sontag criticizing
our habit of interpreting—all
the time saying THIS is what
IT means & here's the
Reason Why. Quit doing that,
she says. Quit interpreting.
For awhile.

Shelley's
advice to
himself
if not to other writers: Make
the Familiar Strange and the
Strange Familiar. Why do that?
Why Familiarize? Why Strangify? .
What's going on? I want to know
why?

Virginia
Wolf tells a
story of a
snail’s pace: its pilgrimage across
a leaf in KewGardens,
London
while human beings pass in
conversation. Over head,
a small plane, clouds and sky.
Does IT beg for interpretation?

And John
Cage—sitting
still at
the piano: do you need to
know why? Just take IT in. No
questions asked. No reasons why.
No because & affect. No
scapegoating—

THIS is
what's going on:
a man sits at the piano,
a snail crosses a leaf while
people pass talking about
love and life. A small
plane circles overhead.
No questions asked.

105 comments:

We will watch the snail gladly a thousand times, but the Cage concert we will only pay for once.

The National Art Gallery in Ottawa, once paid millions for a painting that consisted of a red stripe and a blue stripe and a red stripe. Some people, tricksters maybe, responded by trying to pay their taxes with facsimiles. Thus was the " interpretation" of the populace.

Art comes from the root ar - join, joint, juncture. At the crux of culture and beyond culture. Inert- literally not art. Not at the crux. Inside the box--cave, culture, custom, convention. Art in the true sense is an offense to culture. Inert (unart) stokes and reinforces culture.

In German "Kunst", which to me is related to "koennen" ( to be able to, to have ability or skill, especially something extraordinary, not necessarily in the counter-cultural way. Something like the guild. They know how to make things, like the masons know how to build a cathedral. Stripes, hence, don't count.)

canny? (vs uncanny) To have a skill on the one hand.To be on the edge of culture and convention is something else. The latter is going to be offensive and threatening appropriately. BB Wolf huffing at the 3 little pigs. Art threatening the establishment, institution, convention, culture. As opposed to reinforceing and supporting. (Dia-bolical as opposed to sym-bolical--or rather parabolical (parable) as opposed to both.)

Obeying whom with what... Chesterton says, it leaves us stranded at the crossroads. In Buddhism it's all good, including with my Yoga teachers, with others it's all bad, with some others it is chance and divination. -- Our conscience we talked about, but what informs it?

In Hinduism, if your god fails to perform for you, you can chuck him and get a different one.

I see now how it is important in a faith to implore and work and yet accept setbacks at the same time. But it has to be right.

Debotton wants art and loves Christian art, it seems that as an atheist he feels everything is right about it, only, only, only what? He can't believe it beyond the artistic aspect. Another one stuck at the crossroads.

I don't know a culture who, if I said, look God just told to take my son Isaac up on the mountain and make him a living sacrified, would say go for it Abe. Listen to God. Counter cultural values and understanding, protocols and practice. Not to mention good taste.

In the ancient times people were sacrificed all the time. Remember also Agamemnon and his daughter. Life was cheap. Now, too, people sacrifice children for various reasons. What is different about Abraham's God, that The Lord provided, and Abraham knew it already. We don't bear our God. He bears us. A difference that makes a difference.

Keep it sweet and it loses its counter culture value. Abraham didn't know Isaac would be spared. Being is a cultue that is counter culture to the mainstreajm culture is one thing--and in a sense Xtianity is comfortabley mainsteam in it's "counter" culture and has the reinforcement of its institution. Abraham ("father of faith" ) is significant as an individual-against-culture--as was Jesus. No choir. No amen corner. Counter culture is a cross roads experience--crucial. Excruciating. To die for.

It is more a story about the God of Abraham than about Abraham. Vital difference. This is where context-less, ambiguous modernity and post-modernity, and maybe post-post-modernity, leave you stranded. The big question always is: Who is your God? Bigger than: will you obey. Though that comes into play.

"Xtianity" is not an institution any more than a family. It is a collection of people under voluntary association. Where the government gets itself involved, it is a mistake. It is not the nature of the church. Also North Carolina situation does hardly prevail in other times and places.

It'[s an institution, which is why it's fallen off and people claim to be spiritaul rather than relgious. Call them WRONG. That's their sense.What does North Carolina Situation have to do with our conversatoin. What is counter cultural you asked, and I've been giving you my response. Abraham obeying.

The "at first glance" was what Abraham carried with him up the mountain--assuring Isaac that the lord would provide, to ease Isaac's question. Culture as a value of human live (humanism) that is not the same as the higher law to which Abraham responds. The issue: counter culture--what is it, what is is like to be counter culture--within a couinterculture, or isolate, as an individual, as an artist, say--scientist...

Jesus was counter to both secular and "sacred" culture. Imagine being outside and counter to secular humanism and "sacred humanism." This is what Abraham represents for me--what ever cultural context you wish to see him in and whatever your own established frame of modernity and post modernity you operate against as a counter culturalist yourself.

Abraham was isolated in the faith of a supreme being independent of Abraham's own desires and manipulations, higher than gods of natural phenomena, but not distant. In this framework we can have sacrificial love, true humanity, right work, right play, trust.

Of course, supreme being independent of Abraham's own desires and manipulations--that's the uncanny faith of his obedience. Me too: Independent of my desires and manipulations though I am a life-long God-wrestler (my will de done, damnit.) Ok--hell with Abraham, then, Call him culturalist. No counter whatsoever. Wrapped in the bosom of God--who will provide the sacrice. Whistle while you work. Thoreau was a counter-culturalist, marching to the beat of a different drummer &higher power. Let me send up Henry as my model of counter culture. O R you tell me yours.

Am I counter culture when I stand at the check out at Walmart and have to see the nonsense on the magazine covers and ridicule the experience to the people in front of me and behind me. Ooh, Cher had another facelift!

I got atheist and don-'t-give-a-crap students who hate the same stuff. They wear tattoos and cut themselves, binge and purge, savvy about drugs and protest WalMart as a whole, body image photoshopping. Counter culture--like Abe and Henry and Brigitte. Spiritual, many will claim--but not OMG religious. (What was the North Carolina Situation you were indicating?)

Never been there. can't say. But guessing it could be religious hot bed which makes it unique in some ways. Headed to IKEA, to buy cheap sheers for seven windows. All the way to the other side of the city, but the ring route is nearly complete.

Not a religious hotbed. Secular Humanism (modern, post modern...) let that stand for Culture !; Religious Humanism (insitutionalized, established: varied) let that stand for Culture II. Counter to both cultures might be this ineffable counter-culture non-culture (truly religious ) experience which we might try to characterize if not nail down, though our own disinclination not to agree about these things will prevent anything conclusive. Which makes good sense to me: the Arguing is the Answer--not the various answers.

OK--answers. Given secular humanism (culture I); religious humanism (culture II): Counter to both Cultures (I & II) might represent the Meta Counter culture that for me Abraham represents, or Thoreau. Any one beyond the humanisms of Good & Evil--and outside the traditions of conformity and rebellion--of church and school and state. In art, music, science This is my attempt to answer your "What is counter culture" question. And we won't agree, which is why despite ongoing needs to make decisions etc. I claim that in my mind: arguing (the process) counts more than answers (the products)

As for example Cher's facelift illustrates. There is something wrong with our culture, or lack of culture, or counter culture ( are these people not ex-hippies), that we can all discern, atheist, Brigitte, purging teen.

Cher is made up for sake of illustration. What would be the answer. First of all, we don't want it, but for some reason marketing keeps feeding us this vomit. What is the answer? Law and gospel. If you want law, get that stuff regulated, or don't look at it. Gospel, you are made special in God's image and loved with all your flaws. Disregard the other garbage... Get help, if you need it. Beyond culture.

"For those not in love, there's law--to rule, to regulate, to rectify." Beyond culture and cultures goodNevil, goodies and weasels (Churchies and State-ics and Schoolmyn). Best decisions are situation-spefiic, not generalizable, "obedience." if one has the ears to hear. Metis - Ulysses had it. I myself am deaf (disobedient) I assume--doing the best I can regardless

Some teachers and Pharisees were with him but they had to support him or discuss with him at their own risk (Nicodemus came at night). The way things are going we will soon only be allowed silent protest.

Jesus is not a trickster. As they accused him and falsely testified against him he said: did I not teach openly and publicly in the temple in Jerusalem?

Hyde also does not sequester Jesus into ranks of tricksters. At least I don't recall. Correct me, if I am wrong by appropriate quote. However, Luther likes to say that the devil was tricked by God's strategy of death and resurrection.

You are right about Hyde. I include Jesus in the representation of Trickster: a cross 2 domains, confuses and comforts, anti-culture... The Devil R Us, yes? So to speak. In manners of speaking. Tricky.

Jesus fulfills, as we had previously. Luther likewise confronts and reforms, but conservatively.

Also, I was thinking about the "temple" and the "marketplace" items, or the sacred and profane distinction you like to make. First of all, we see that Jesus calls speaking in the temple "public". Also Christian services are the "public worship". In this capacity, the servant of the word in public worship is in conservative denominations always male. Females take positions other than the "public" worship speaker. Also, Hyde makes this point, which is strange to me, that if people are properly instructed they do not take the mysteries of the temple out onto the marketplace. And he is even talking about European settings.

As we see in the link for the brass band gathering, public worship is in the Cathedral and spills out onto the marketplace. In Roman times, too, the liturgy was taken around the city for people to hear and see and gather in various places.

So I wonder where the idea of the hidden meeting comes from. Do you put the light under the bowl or on top the pole. Christianity is underground only when persecuted.

It is Free Masons and Mormons, and so on who have meetings not accessible to all with things you don't mention in public. Christianity flies the entire laundry right on the clothesline.

Talking about Free Masons and Mormons makes me think about Joseph Smith and his habit of being a Seer. What was I reading. Oh, ya. Casanova. I finished book 5 of 30. He traveled among Free Masons and also duped women with his looking glass and oracle work. This sort of thing must have been quite fashionable. Since placebo works 50% of the time, he was also able to cure women of pimples and things like that. Usually the oracle prescribed a different diet. (Isn't diet or clothing always the thing to make a difference that does not really make much of a difference. Cure all. Just like the women's magazines at the check-out stand at Walmart.)

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full." The spirit of bumper-sticker , T-shirt, profane display of religious sentiment I find damaging, demeaning. This is my problem. I don't like christianism, I have a small mind and am largely intolerant of intolerance. My sin. At the same time: the variety of religious experience and expression is engaging and acceptable to me. What I hate most is denominational intolerance and exclusivity , historical nit-picking and hair-splitting, creedal and catechismic defense as well as fundamental literalism (materialism). But I love to argue with it--knowing better.

Yes--hypocrite, Wretch like me. Damned (damaged and damaging) if I do or don't. Damned, damnit. Denial and cover-up is toxic. Imagine if I were tolerant of intolerance. That would be awesome. I could walk on water.

Tell, me for example one thing that is nit-picking about Luther's catechism. There is nothing nit-picking in it. But simply the fact that I adhere to it, gives you cause to pelt me with insults, though one can talk perfectly rationally with me. Yes, it would be awesome, if the situation could be different. But you will never pick up my catechism just because.

I pelt everyone who strikes me as exclusive and defensive and righteous (worst sense) with insults and mockery and scorn--best I can. I don't know Luther--his 95 theses might could be considered nit-picking by them who disagree. Orthodox Catholics, say. Died in the wool Calvinists maybe. I got no problem with Luther. Some Lutherans: yes--them who claim my tradition is an abomination. Pelt Pelt Pelt. Not interested in your catechism or anyone's. I'm not a good person and don't particularly get along with good persons because of my propensity to pelt. Wretch like me.

Not interested. The nit-pickers I had in mind we a sustaiined thread of catholics and orthodox presbyterians arguing over authority and authenticity and I've already told you and told you of Bror's wonderful castigation of presbyterianism. ( I like Bror ok--just got called to New Mexico). I'm not looking for validation, OR cathechmic instruction..

“122. It is recorded in the history of St. Martin, that when he absolved certain notorious sinners, he was rebuked by Satan for doing so. St. Martin is said to have replied, "Why, I would absolve even thee, if thou wouldst say from thy heart, I repent of having sinned against the Son of God, and I pray for pardon." But the devil never does this. For he persists in committing sin and defending the same.

123. All liars and hypocrites imitate Cain their father, by either denying their sin or excusing it. Hence they cannot find pardon for their sins. And we see the same in domestic life. By the defense of wrong-doing, anger is increased. For whenever the wife, or the children, or the servants, have done wrong, and deny or excuse their wrong-doing, the father of the family is the more moved to wrath; whereas, on the other hand, confession secures pardon or a lighter punishment. But it is the nature of hypocrites to excuse and palliate their sin or to deny it altogether and under the show of religion, to slay the innocent.”

I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser, who was wont to importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church. On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested, — "But these impulses may be from below, not from above." I replied, "They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil." No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature.

Whether a point of doctrine is printed in a catechism or living in your head, it is basically an idea, and ideas you supposedly love. One should be able to read them, write them, discuss them, memorize them, not memorize them, treasure them, propagate them, analyze the them--either way.

In any case the first commandment is to love God above all else, and the fear and love of him is the beginning of wisdom and virtue. Even the better Greeks knew this, though in the end they were still seeking a kingdom in this world. Just because it should be written on the heart does not mean that you should not write it on a tablet and pass it on to your children.

I'm not wise or virtuous. Can't honestly say I love or fear the god I hear people profanely saluting or exclaiming over (OMG) or announcing on the back of their car bumpers, or sending blessings and amen affirmations, or warnings. Emerson's words are good description for me--not catechism. I identify with the screwed up and confused--on the edge, doubtful and wondering. . Not the "Carls" and other minions and representatives who appear walking on water. Wretches like me: lame and hobble de hoy. Crippled and can't cover it up..

You have jumped from defining what is good to whether you or others are keeping it. Different question. And it is only the beginning. We are not even saying that we have made a beginning. As Paul says the law only shows up how ugly sin really is. Different matter. In essence we agree that the law is not being kept and therefore a dialectic is established. This does not hinder anyone from stating the law.

“151. The same thing must come to pass with all sinners. For, unless by repentance you first come to God, and yourself confess your sin to God, God will surely come to you, to disclose your sin. For God cannot endure that any one should deny his sin. To this fact the psalmist testifies: "When I kept silence, my bones wasted away through my roaring all the day long. For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me; my moisture was changed as with the drouth of summer." Ps 32, 3-4. For, although sin has its sleep and its security, yet that sleep is "at the door"; it cannot long last, and the sin cannot remain hidden”

No: i confess my own wretchedness--made more acute by the virtue of them surrounding me--keeping it with their protestations and advertisements. What beginning? Sin is Being , Essence--the denial of parts of which is ugly and toxic. Law is always being kept. No one is ever keeping it. Transcended or not--a matter of grace and beyond me.

When I went to "mucking" class, I made a thing. She had given us bags with stuff, such as beads and glass pieces and brass buttons, and shells and sand dollars, as well as rocks and bits of drift wood. To the leader this sort of work serves to inspire her writing. She was the writer in residence for a month at the librarary.

What I made was a borderland. All the shiny beads and glass pieces went into a sea, all the shells and treasures went along the edge of the ocean on the beach. The rocks and driftwood went behind. I did it on the diagonal. What I saw was how the treasures wash up and lie at the edge.

The beginning with God happens in this tension of not being able to keep the law-- from our hearts or the catechism.

In public, the catechism is a wild treasure at the borders of our individual natures within society. Law and order and failure and love and redemption, a continual upheaval of the ocean like the ever changing tides. And yet, they keep within their limits given.

A Pentecostal church katy-corner to my Dads' Presbyterian Church and the enormous Catholic church across the way . Holy Rollers we called them and we could here the boom boom booming of their service. Wild.

Borderland land. Where the treasure is (peril of great price). Torn between two loves--devil's deep blue sea and the dry land. How quickly you translate a montage to a painting. Good work. Multi-talented: music, art, writing: expressing for the glory of God, yes? On the edge., .

My gift to you, Brigitte'Some wisdom from John Calvin's "The Necessity of Reforming the Church":"Moreover, the rule which distinguishes between pure and vitiated worship is of universal application, in order that we may not adopt any device which seems fit to ourselves, but look to the injunction of Him who alone is entitled to prescribe. Therefore, if we would have Him to approve our worship, this rule, which he everywhere enforces with the utmost strictness, must be carefully observed. For there is a twofold reason why the Lord, in condemning and prohibiting all fictitious worship, requires us to give obedience only to his own voice. First, it tends greatly to establish His authority that we do not follow our own pleasures but depend entirely on his sovereignty; and, secondly, such is our folly, that when we are left at liberty, all we are able to do is to go astray. And then when once we have turned aside from the right path, there is no end to our wanderings, until we get buried under a multitude of superstitions. Justly, therefore, does the Lord, in order to assert his full right of dominion, strictly enjoin what he wishes us to do, and at once reject all human devices which are at variance with his command. Justly, too, does he, in express terms, define our limits that we may not, by fabricating perverse modes of worship, provoke His anger against us.I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to His worship, if at variance with His command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, “Obedience is better than sacrifice.” “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,” (1 Samuel 15:22; Matthew. 15:9.)Every addition to His word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere “will worship” is vanity. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate."

I thought you might resonate with the concern of getting beyond human and personal versions and renditions and vanity "that we do not follow our own pleasures but depend entirely on his sovereignty; and, secondly, such is our folly, that when we are left at liberty, all we are able to do is to go astray. And then when once we have turned aside from the right path, there is no end to our wanderings, until we get buried under a multitude of superstitions" The foolishness of Emersonianism etc.

I thought you might finally understand the difference between Calvinism and Lutheranism. If they tell you that you must wear vestments, you need to resist and stand firm on evangelical freedom. If they tell you that you must not, then you will, for the same reason. There is no coercion in all sorts of matters, and we will not be oppressed in our conscience toward God.

The Presbyterian might however engage in endless discussion with the Roman Catholic about whether vestments must or must not be worn. The Lutheran will do the opposite of what they tell him they must or must not do. See the difference? And the discord does not amuse us either, but that line Must be held. We will not be dictated to in regards to adiophra (things indifferent in essence). THAT freedom counts and to give in is to surrender the Gospel. Over the dead body.

The vestments issue,yes mam. I like the word adiophra. Calvinists will be dictated to. Lutheran's won't. There's the difference. That makes Lutherans much more admirable in my opinion. Calvinists will be oppressed in their conscience towards God. Not the Lutherans. "that we do not follow our own pleasures but depend entirely on his sovereignty; and, secondly, such is our folly, that when we are left at liberty, all we are able to do is to go astray. And then when once we have turned aside from the right path, there is no end to our wanderings, until we get buried under a multitude of superstitions"

Ok, you get it. Whew. -- Vestments could stand for any number of things indifferent, neither forbidden nor commanded.

What kind of worship did The Lord command? Go teach the nations everything he has commanded. Preach the good news. Have baptism, the supper and the binding and loosing of sins. Preach it to all, openly. City on the hill. Old Testament temple worship rules are finished. Do not be taken captive by cleverly invented stories. Preach Christ crucified. Do not let people oppress your conscience about new moons, fasting, and such. Much can be adapted to local culture. The church is pan-national, pan- linguistic, pan-cultural, which does not prevent it from being creedal, orthodox-- teaching faithfully all That Has Been Commanded, which may be a lot less stuff than some preachers of the law may think. Those of us who have been oppressed in this way, will treasure the right freedom we possess as our birthright as children and heirs.

Asiophra--as far as I'm concerned. None of these issues or concerns were part of my background, heritage, upbringing. Never felt oppressed. Never heard talk of what the Lord commands re worship. Never aware of captivating or being captive by cleverly invented stories. Preach Christ & Him Crucified is a notion from Flannery O'Conner captivating stories. (Though I treasure my old man's notions of a crucified ego.)Strawberry festivals and potluck dinners. If you've been oppressed--then you will treasure the right freedom you possess as your birthright as children and heirs. I continue to be struck by the emphasis on differences and separation as opposed to the "same" and the indiscriminate and shared. But you know me: not a church goer or member, I identify with an upbringing, nostalgia--spectator not a current participant or player. .

I see Occam was declared a heretic by pope of Avignon. Emperor in Munich agreed with him and gave him refuge. He was working on the separation of church and politics. This was a major theme of the 95 Theses. Get the church out of warfare. It's the temporal authority's job to defend the country, etc.

History and biography - even theology (and philosophy) don't convince. Logic. Sermons. Who fought with whom. Who said what. Who was anathamatized. Considered heretic. Admired. "The wind blows wherever it wants. Just as you can hear the wind but can't tell where it comes from or where it is going, so you can't explain how people are born of the Spirit."

"Memorizing theology as a system, arguing about it, belittling others, "doing" -- all that stuff comes easy to self-sufficient and self-righteous people. Waiting for the blessings, asking for and in courage, giving up and then trying again -- that is the really truly stuff of the soul. " This is the spirit.I myself am self-righteous if not self-sufficient--beating my plowshares into swords in order to wrangle over Letters of the Law. King of the Hill. Wretch like me. I have not love.

I just read about the University training in 1505: nothing but Aristotle, Plato, grammar and dialectics. At Erfurt there were innovative teachers. They taught actually from primary sources not commentaries. Years and years of it. According to the traditional curriculum the last two years were to be spent in special seminars and disputations, pinterpreting and debating important works of Aristotle and dealing with the quadrivium--music, arithmetic, goemetry, and astronomy. demands on the students during these final years were extremely high. They lived together in what might be called university residence hall, under rigorous supervision, and found little time for relaxation during the short breaks in their nearly monastic daily rhythm. At the age of twenty-one, one year earlier than prescribed by the university statutes, Luther passed his master of arst examination and had now acquired a comprehensive view of the scholarly disciplines." -- No wonder he often began by saying: we have to forget what Aristotle thought. Later I guess, he also put Occam behind him.

You and Clark would get along in that you both respect history and tradition. He loves to drop some massive account of past times -- as do my orthodox Calvinist and Catholic FB friends--as if that should settle some issue or other. Neither logic nor sermons convince--nor facts, stats, data. My mind-set (bias, belief, prejudice, conviction) is impermeable. I can't change it my own self, let alone the influence and impact of others. Not quite sure what it is we are arguing at this point--beyond the fact of denominational differences and the degree to which they are considered crucial or merely various.

The point is why do you claim to be the dialectician and others are either Stupid Amen corner, or engage in divisive talk. How are other people permitted to Be, in your system or lack if system? --theologians are trained, have been trained in logic, and discuss, and agree and disagree. But you like none of it. Everyone just supposed to sit down and say "om"-- very dialectical.

Dialect maintains opposed views in what is assumed to be complementary if hostile relationship. Dialectic does not aiming (as a practice) to have one side win, the other lose: one side right, the other wrong. The opposition is sustained in play and a third perspective (like Temprature to hot-cold) is anticipated that does no injustice to either side--sustains the difference between Luther and Calvin, say, or Protestantism and Catholicism--without collapsing either or conflating. That said, Dialectic is a practice in edification, not in Righteousness. I might practice dialect with those willing--but still find others boring in their insistence of their own righteousness, in exclusion to others. Wretch like me. (Again: you use the notion "supposed to" in ways that have nothing to do with my consideration or lack of consideration with others. I have no authority to pose or suppose what others do, say, think. So no one is supposed to sit and say "om." Some find it stress relieving, no douibt.)

My privilege and delight is my sustained & resilient argument with militant atheists, fortress fundamentalists, liberals,libertarians, Lutherans. secular & sacred humanists, democrats and republicans: and while theyall express a wonderful array of diversity and Variety of both Religious & Irreligious Experience with admirable conviction of belief & bias not to be disparaged ordiminished—we have in common our narcissistic, solipsistic sealed-in homeland security bells & whistlespreserving our impenetrable integrity, consistency, coherence holding our soul-self together like anythingcome hello or high water --more SAME than Different, more LIKE than Unlike --and for that I'm eternally grateful.

Sam's creed. Ya sure. There is nothing but supposed to's with you. But let no other have or defend a doctrine... I bought the thread up to a recent post, in case you did not see.

I am headed for VBS where I am on charge of play with water, for five day's worth of games, hopefully all out of doors. Today, to ease them in: fishing with magnets and picking out marbles with toes. No doctrines will be resolved though I think I will talk about baptism. Friede, Freude, Eierkuchen. ( peace, joy and egg pancakes)

The "supposed to's" are generated in your head as a response to opposition. Brigitte and indicate your desire to please and be pleased, right and be right. . Sensitive to the opinions and thought of others as if they were instructing you, telling you how to think, what to do. You would not make a good dialectician (What I just wrote is my description--it confers no authority or instruction or supposed to's)

Do I not LET you have or defend a doctrine. Of course I do. Do I take issue with you position best I can. Yes. If opposes mine. Not a matter of let or permit--a matter of exchange.Do you want your views unopposed? We go "om" to each other?

Is allowed? You continue to be stuck inside some sense of authority and permission--allowed-to-disallowed ratios. Is this Lutheran? Let be known, I allow you to think and say whatever comes to mind. If I agree with you, I will give you a gold star. If not, I will attempt to mock, scorn, ridicule--the "sin" of course and not the sinner. How could it be other wise?

Facebook Badge

Facebook Badge

Auto Bio

I choose, as a determining POINT in my life, to acknowledge a bullet fired into the armpit of my grandfather, Samuel Scoville, Jr. by athief in the night sometime in the late 19thc.

The thief escaped, my grandfather having pulled his own pistol from beneath the pillow,squeezing off a couple of rounds and sendingthe burglar scurrying into the Connecticut night...

For reasons offamily notoriety, the incident was reported in both New York and Philadelphia papers. A former roommate in Philly called up Young Goodman Sam, inviting him down for a weekend gala: The Yale-Penn Football game. “You can take my sister Katherine, and chaperone me and my fiancé, he said.

In those days couples were not advised to be alone. Unaccompanied.

Sam took a steam-driven locomotive train down toPhiladelphia, escorted Katherine to the leather-helmet contest, fell in love, asked her to marry him.She did & they lived more or less HAP-ily ever after, generating a tribe of offspring who like wise generated in kind so that if it hadn’t of been for that bullet, well, it’s impossible to begin to consider how unimaginably different life-as-we-know-itwould have been. No one can say.

For one thing: YOU, dear Reader, wouldn’t be reading THIS HERE right now, resurrecting these words to walk around in your skull-haus this very be-here-now moment. So even you are impacted forever by that bullet.

(I could drive up to Connecticut right now, retrieve the small bite of lead, drop it in your hand and remind you how co-incidental our life is—how inexplicable, how arbitrary & selective our accounts, how much we omit which is also absolutely necessary, how inadequate our because & affects.)

The bullet is a NECESSARY butINSUFFICIENT cause of who-I-am, without which any explanation would be incomplete. Sam Scoville